@ Supply Chain Management

In my previous post, PRTM study highlights five key supply chain challenges, I highlighted a recent study by the supply chain management consulting firm. In this post, I want to delve a little deeper into those key challenges. Again, the highlighted challenges were:

1. Supply chain volatility and uncertainty have permanently increased
2. Securing growth requires truly global customer and supplier networks
3. Market dynamics demand regional, cost-optimized supply chain configurations
4. Risk management involves the end-to-end supply chain
5. Existing supply chain organization are not truly integrated and empowered

Supply chain volatility and uncertainty have permanently increased

So what is the situation with supply chain volatility and uncertainty?

Survey results clearly show that concerns about continued demand volatility hamper companies’ ability to effectively manage supply chains in an upturn. In fact, three-fourths of respondents consider demand and supply volatility and poor forecast accuracy to be the biggest roadblocks they currently face. Volatility concerns were not assuaged during the recession, nor have most companies successfully implemented strategies for managing volatility in the years ahead. Recent shortages, such as those in electronic components and selected raw materials, indicate that many companies do not have the flexibility to meet an increasingly volatile demand. The rapid ramp up or ramp down of capacities seems to be a big challenge for many study participants.

The biggest roadblocks faced by respondents are demand and supply volatility and poor forecast accuracy. But surely, one is the cause of the other and this can only be exacerbated in a global supply chain with long manufacturing and transportation lead times. Does not poor forecasting of demand beget supply volatility whereas demand volatility is a function of the economic cycle? Now, when both situations occur simultaneously, then it is quite believable that firms are in for a rough time.

The actions that respondents plan to take doesn’t make much sense to me – they don’t hurt but more importantly, they don’t help. The action items can be broken down as follows:

The best-performing companies have already taken steps to improve supply chain response time and visibility across all supply chain partners.

I believe this is the key to cutting down volatility – reducing the supply chain response time and if no reduction is possible, then at least making certain of it. Both the magnitude and variation of supply chain response time create uncertainty (and consequently volatility).

Others plan to implement new strategies within the next two years. Companies are focusing primarily on deepening collaboration with key customers to reduce unanticipated changes in demand.

I believe that this is a no-go. Key customers themselves face volatility and therefore partnering with customers to reduce one’s own volatility is unlikely to bear fruit unless the key customer’s customers are not creating volatility. The first point above i.e. reducing supply chain response time is the more important factor.

Half of participants plan to implement joint “real-time” planning with their key customers by 2012, and nearly half plan to develop processes for improved demand sensing—that is, understanding the market rate of demand in real time, rather than having to wait for after-the-fact reporting.

Again, real-time planning is quite useless when you cannot obtain real-time response. You can create a plan as soon as a trend/micro trend is recognized but if you cannot create a response to it, then you’re just printing numbers.

In Rainmakers… Part 2, I want to go through the list and Q&A of the Rainmakers identified by DC Velocity in their article Who are this year’s Rainmakers?. The previous post in this series is here: Rainmakers… Part 1.

So let’s get started,

Judy McReynolds [Arkansas Best Corp]

Q: You have taken the reins of Arkansas Best during a very challenging time for the economy, transportation, and the LTL segment in particular. LTL faces overcapacity, soft demand, and ongoing price wars. What is your strategy for steering Arkansas Best and ABF through this?
A: Both the industry and our company have been severely impacted by the length and depth of this recession. Our most experienced officers will tell you they have never seen a business climate as challenging as this one. Fortunately, we have managed the company conservatively and that has provided us with flexibility. We have remained focused on understanding what is important to our customers and finding a way to be an essential element of their distribution networks. Those are the things that have sustained us during this challenging period and will allow us to be successful in the future.

Summary: My, how times have changed. During the period immediately before this recession/depression, trucking was booming, drivers were scarce even while oil prices were high. Now, this industry is muddling through the trough laden with overcapacity. Even if and when the broader economy recovers, trucking will continue to remain in the doldrums until the excess capacity is discarded. If as Judy mentioned, that Arkansas Best has been managed conservatively, then it should be well positioned to ride out the lean years which in my opinion could last quite a while longer than people expect and especially for the trucking industry.

Steve Mulaik [Progress Group]

Q: What one key piece of advice would you offer a supply chain manager looking to set up a logistics network in India?
A: Always have a Plan B in your pocket. Things happen fast or they never happen at all in India. The problem is you never know which until the last second. Risk management is child’s play in the United States compared to what it’s like on the [Indian] subcontinent. Make it your organization’s mission to be prepared.

Summary: Now, I’m from India and have a fair idea of the business practices in my country and it is refreshing to hear a reflection on the enormous differences in the way things are done in different countries. And I agree strongly that Risk management here is child’s play in the US compared to other parts of the world. Just last week, I was at a party hosted by my uncle who spent a great deal of time with a non-profit in Sierra Leone (in the years leading up to the coup and war i.e. 1990s). There was one memorable line that I think captures the polar opposites of how different cultures operate – “Six days for the thief man, one day for the master.” The phrase means that workers might spend six days thieving from the master while the master has only one day to discover and put an end to it – lopsided, wouldn’t you say?

What I’ve always found surprising about the global supply chain is that it works. Somehow. Some sort of a shifting but workable common ground is found upon which this global supply chain marches forward. Corporations that are engaged in this global dance have somehow managed to persevere where decades and millennia of human endeavor has sallied and failed. I think there is an important reason for this – the transnational corporation has an operational sub-culture that in all matters non-operational is dissociated from the collision of cultures that is constantly taking place. What I’m saying is that as long as it was the members of the culture that attempted to create long supply chains, it kept tailing because culture carried a currency that rarely extended far beyond the borders of that culture. The transnational corporation is one of the ways in which this former feature of human experience has been transcended. And that is a significant breakthrough.

Wesley Randall [Auburn University]

Q: What advice would you offer a young person considering a career in logistics or supply chain?
A: Work hard, learn the basics, find a mentor, be willing to take a lateral job to learn a new skill, and don’t be afraid to go international. For my family, the time spent internationally was some of the best of our lives. And care about the people around you. I recently heard an executive from The Container Store say, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast". How true that is. There is an emerging realization that attracting and keeping talent is critical to sustained competitive advantage.

Summary: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” That’s some major pawnage.

Rich Thompson [Jones Lang LaSalle]

Q: The conventional wisdom has been that the industrial property segment skirted much of the damage inflicted on the real estate market in the past two years. Is the other shoe about to drop, or has it already dropped?
A: In general, real estate values are down 30 percent across the board, and industrial properties have suffered as with the rest of the commercial real estate market.

Over the past five quarters, the majority of U.S. industrial markets have experienced rising vacancy rates, creating the potential for landlord cash flow issues. Based on how the debt is structured on properties experiencing these problems, we expect to see more foreclosures, loan defaults and public disclosure of these problems in the industrial market in 2010 and 2011.

Summary: If you’ve been following this blog, I think you’d easily agree that I’ve been harping about the implosion and non-recovery in the housing market, broader economy etc. In fact, for the better part of the past 12 months, this has been the constant on this blog. This is simply because, this implosion is ongoing – it’s not in the public eye because negativity (even if true) has a limited shelf life while positivity does not. As Rich says, these problems in the industrial and commercial can be expected to continue in 2010 and 2011. Well, I’d expect the real estate oversupply to last longer than that until some major driver of growth appears.

One anecdotal observation that I make is that people are snapping up real estate thinking that there are good deals available. It’s true that there has been a 20-25% decrease in property values but my study of asset values post bubbles is that it has to reach the point that it is considered a dead end and I just don’t think that it has reached that point stateside. Couple that with the fact that residential real estate is still largely unaffordable evidenced by the need for loans still offered at 3.5% down (FHA) and even 5% by private lenders – this market is still on life support. Consequently, when the most important investment that middle class families makes is treading water, what are the implications for the broader economy and the supply chains at large?

Of course, the new iPhone is selling like hot cakes – so go figure?

Who are this year’s Rainmakers? is a recent article about thought leaders identified by DC Velocity for 2010.

This year’s selections represent many different segments of the supply chain discipline: practitioners, academics, consultants, and vendors. But they’re also united by some common threads, including an emphasis on education, training, and people. Through word and deed, our 2010 honorees more than live up to the Rainmakers’ legacy of making a lasting contribution to the profession.

There is also a short Q&A with these professional’s, a sampling of comments that I found interesting are below:

Catherine Cooper [Ozburn-Hessey Logistics]:

Q: What do you consider to be the greatest obstacles to supply chain optimization?
A: One of the great challenges facing our industry is managing a supply chain with the new credit market constraints. With a restriction on working capital, we are seeing lower inventory levels than ever before, resulting in reduced supply chain cycle times and the need for networkwide item visibility. OHL’s customers are making radical changes in SKU [stock-keeping unit] assortments and sourcing methods. The old model of abundance has been replaced with one of scarcity, impacting every part of our industry.

Summary: Volatility is here. Is network visibility the answer? A very small “Yes” but what matters more is the network configuration. Some networks are more susceptible to volatility while others are not – I’ll leave that as an open question for my readers.

Mike Duffy [Cardinal Health]:

Q: What have you found to be the key differences between managing a consumer goods supply chain and a health-care supply chain?
A: For me, a supply chain is a supply chain. The vernacular is very similar, the principles are similar. The biggest difference is where an industry is when it comes to recognizing the role the supply chain can play in driving business performance. In consumer goods and other industries, we’ve identified the supply chain as a key enabler to driving business results. Health care is at a different place on the continuum. Most health-care providers came into existence to take care of patients first and were thrown into the business side of health care second. As a result, the industry as a whole is working to adopt best practices from the consumer products and other industries in order to leverage the supply chain to drive efficiencies and performance.

Summary: A supply chain is a supply chain. Except there is one significant difference arising this past year. The big government is about to slap its paw print over the healthcare supply chain. Anyone thinking about that?

Charlie Guardiola [Burlington Coat Factory]

Q: If you could offer one piece of advice to someone looking to jump-start their career in distribution or supply chain management, what would it be?
A: My advice would be to be a great businessperson first and then apply that business knowledge to the supply chain discipline. I believe that the best supply chain people are those who are great business people. Back when it was called "logistics" and not "supply chain," we were seen as warehouse guys who moved boxes from point A to point B. But things have really changed over the years, and now supply chain is seen as an integral contributor far beyond the four walls of the DC.

Summary: That is some really sound advice. Some of the others identified here talk about greater visibility, confronting volatility etc – that’s something that businesspersons don’t seem to understand all that well. I mean, they get the list of it but they don’t get the gist of it.

Peter D. Gibbons [Starbucks Corp.]

Q: What do you consider to be the greatest obstacles to supply chain optimization?
A: Two things come to mind: talent and coordination across the supply chain. The logistics field needs more well-educated logistics professionals with early hands-on experience who can understand quickly what needs to change and can implement change without negatively impacting customer service and cost.

On top of that, the ability to manage "total cost to serve" from product development all the way through to delivery onto a customer’s shelf is essential. The major change in the Starbucks food offerings over the last two years is a great example of balancing improvements to product quality with a supply chain solution that improved total costs and margin but allowed cost trade-offs, including better ingredients and quality.

Summary: I don’t think that he can say it but I can – Over the last two years, Starbucks learnt the lesson that practically every growth company learns sooner than later: Growth doesn’t last forever. But Starbucks has survived, somewhat, despite the threats from competitors because they’ve taken the value route. And the above is a précis of what initial steps of value discovery looks like.

Read the rest of this entry »

Acceleration of Eco-Operation is a new report published (free report : the kind I like) by the Business Performance Management Forum.  I think it would be well worth your time to register and download the report if you want to keep up with the trendiness of green washing everything. I will read and review the report a little later but in reading the executive summary, two comments caught my eye:

"Building better links in high-tech supply chains.the sprawl and complexity of such networks have made it harder to manage end-to-end operations smoothly. Many technology companies are grappling with volatility and disruptions across their supply networks and eliminating waste from duplicative efforts is an ongoing challenge. As product
life cycles shrink, we see inventory build-ups in the supply chains of some companies, while others cope with rising distribution costs, ontime delivery problems, or delays in getting new products to market."
The McKinsey Quarterly

Becoming green is no longer an end in and of itself, but the byproduct of optimizing a supply chain. At the same time, transitioning to a Green Supply Chain while also maximizing efficiency is not a clear-cut process."
Industry Week – Diamond Management & Technology Consultants

There is so much confusion in the above two posts that I can’t help but roll my eyes.

In the first snippet, there is a lot of talk about eliminating waste. If you collapse the global supply chain into a simple manufacturing floor and pretend for a moment that various work centers were indeed different countries and ports, then you would see that all the effort of bygone years that went into batch size reductions, reducing setup times and inefficient steps and processes, reducing physical movement times by workers (all lean related activities) on the manufacturing floor have been turned to naught. We’re back again to big batches, carrying work items from one end of the floor to the other end and then sending it back half way across the floor because we’ve decided to outsource and increase lead times. If anything that is the one root cause of everything that is outlined in the snippet from The McKinsey Quarterly. In short, you cannot eliminate waste on the one hand by creating mounds of it with the other hand. All these management consultants have been doing this for a decade now – I hope that one of the upcoming articles in the quarterly will be titled – "We were wrong to recommend outsourcing," but I’m not holding my breath here.

In the second snippet, ask yourself this question – Would you subject one of the most critical aspect of your operations to some befuddling calculation of carbon emissions sustained in your activity, calculations that no one can even agree on whether they’re the right ones? And it’s not just calculations, but using these calculations to dictate what you would do? This is precisely the back assed way of doing things. Give me a way/technology that surmounts your latest world is ending dogma and I’ll move to it; just don’t ask me to end the world on account of your dogmatism. Archimedes once said, ‘If you give me a lever and a place to stand, I can move the world.’ Today, we’re told, "If you cut your emissions, you can save the world." But cutting emissions means that the industrial activity of the world would decline (and rapidly) across the world returning many parts of the world to the poverty they were just leaving behind barring some new technology that effectively and efficiently replaces the carbon based energy source. And to those who would say that this technology (batteries, wind, solar, geothermal etc) would do it – all I would say is that on your next transatlantic conference or vacation either use one of your "this technologies" in making the trip or use a carbon neutral sail boat or raft. I really don’t believe in nor have the time for first class or corporate jet traveling world messiahs who want me to cut down on my carbon emissions. Neither should you!

And that’s before reading this report. Those are my initial conditions. Now, let me read the report and be enlightened.

At long last, I am posting the review of this book The Supply-Based advantage by Stephen Rogers about which the author had contributed a summary some time ago. Actually, this is the second time I am writing the review because unfortunately, the first one was deleted from my hard drive (pesky, pesky little thing).

When reading this book, the first thing that jumped out at me is that the book is really divided into two parts – the first three chapters are a sort of conceptual and definitional gambit. The fourth chapter is a short introduction into what the blueprint for a supply-based advantage should look like and the rest of the chapters in the book are a study in erecting the different elements of a successful supply based strategy illuminated through the metaphor of a house i.e. foundation, walls, roof, utilities. you get the rough picture.

In the first part of the book, Steve introduces the concepts of competitive advantage, value, complexity and risk (rapid change not being a concept but a reality). It is a good idea to keep those concepts in mind (but because they’re in some way detached from the metaphor of constructing a good house, they float somewhere in the ether and you need to suffuse your reading with the implicit relation to these concepts).

There are some interesting questions asked in the first part of the book (that which I pored over in my previous review but will only touch on briefly now):

1. Why do smaller companies understand better how to structure a good relationship with suppliers and larger companies (and even smaller companies that grow large) forget this? Steve’s answer takes the form that in most small businesses, owners are usually spending their own money and therefore seek to get the most value of their spending. I think that is a good observation. I would only add that a small business entrepreneur is risking everything with the idea that there is something about a particular niche or segment that is uniquely appreciated by him and he proposes to fill that gap with the expectation of reward. Therefore, I infer, that if deriving supply advantages are part of that gap equation, then the owner will set about creating some measure of defensible value that will add to his overall advantage. Now, as the company grows, others come in that do not share the owner’s appreciation of the gap or of the value – the further the owners are pushed from this basic equation, the less of an understanding the organization now possesses of the situation. However, those who add to the firm’s headcount bring along their own ideas of what is really important to the equation or their understanding of the equation – sometimes better and sometimes not.

2. The importance of timing. This important idea is illustrated through the example of P&G before the American Civil War and how the owners of the firm seized the import of securing the supply of a key component before the outbreak of war that served them well through and after the war. In fact, the claim goes that the additional profits generated from this strategic move funded their future operations and growth. This is a lesson of life – cut your losers short before they consume you but press your winners home before they are undone by others.

As for the second part of the book, there is a litany of plans, activities and processes that can be marshaled towards building up (or conversely breaking down) supply-based advantages. These chapters deal with the nitty-gritty of structuring these activities and processes for success. Also, what I found helpful in the reading is the well distributed “Practitioner’s take” in grey boxes that provide reflections every step of the way which by itself renders these chapters within the framework of “Here’s a good way to structure things” – “Oh! by the way, here’s how I found it”. Now of course, your straddle upon this framework is going to be different but you have a reference point in these appraisals of salient supplier planning and engagement processes.

Lastly, a shortcoming of the book is the use of an overarching metaphor (of constructing a home) which on the surface seemed very useful but as one gets through the chapters, the metaphor finds little depth beyond the first paragraph of a chapter. Metaphors are tricky to begin with but a good metaphor not only permeates but also reaches deep into a subject and allows a reader to connect beyond the prose so that long after the particulars have escaped one’s grasp, the metaphor resonates and its particulars return on a superficial recounting.

Overall, I think its a worthwhile addition to your library as a reference if you work in the supply management field.

P.S: I am on vacation till mid-June and that will explain the lack of updates. Not that I have explained the lack of updates this month but I am just saying. I have  reason this time. Wish you all well!!

As you very well know, Swine flu is in the news and its effect on the supply chains of the world is a foregone conclusion regardless of whether it peters out and dies or it becomes a full blown pandemic. As I’ve said numerous times on this blog, extended multi-country supply chains increase the number of uncertainties that get to act on the length of the supply chain. However, at least from the point of view of the  United States, this is happening next door – which only goes on to show that even shorter supply chains suffer from the same kind of risks.

But I have a very different sort of observation to make. Apparently, if these news reports are to be believed: Panasonic Sends Workers’ Families Home on Flu Risk, Nikkei Says.

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) — Panasonic Corp. has instructed Japanese workers assigned to parts of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America to send family members back to Japan because of the risk of outbreaks of new influenza strains, Nikkei English News said, without citing anyone.

The Osaka-based electronics maker has asked workers’ families to return home by the end of September, the report said, adding it was not known how many people were affected by the decision.

Please note the date of the report: February 10th, 2009. Today is April 28th, 2009. Curiously, this was also picked up by CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy) here: Panasonic’s pandemic-related move fuels questions, concern.

Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, publisher of CIDRAP News and the CIDRAP Business Source, said he fielded a number of calls today from people in several business sectors who were worried about the significance of Panasonic’s move. "They wanted to know if this is for real," he said.

Penny Turnbull, PhD, senior director for crisis management and business continuity planning for Marriott International, Inc., said she was surprised and perplexed by Panasonic’s decision, given that there has been no significant change in the number, location, or transmission of avian flu infections in humans. She said the implications for other companies aren’t clear.

"Companies might wonder on what intelligence Panasonic based this decision, but I find it hard to believe that any will be following suit in the near future, though they might start monitoring the news more closely for some time to come," said Turnbull, who is also an editorial board member of the CIDRAP Business Source.

Osterholm said heightened concern over the Panasonic news is a reminder that a company’s decisions can have far-reaching unintended consequences and that in the early days a pandemic is likely to generate hysteria, not factual or science-based information.

He also said that Panasonic’s decision isn’t a breaking news story, because the company reportedly issued the new policy in December. "If this was a real pandemic concern, companies would have minutes to hours, not weeks to months, to prepare for this," he said.

Panasonic’s decision to repatriate the families of employees in some of its locations raises more questions about the company’s motives or if its risk assessment is seriously flawed, Osterholm added. "This tells me how ill prepared some of these companies are," he said.

As you might very well note from the above, Panasonic’s move didn’t happen in a vacuum – there were other firms that observed it and decided that the factors on the ground didn’t warrant such a move. Perhaps, Panasonic was only lucky or perhaps their risk assessment model led them in an altogether different direction – that is what I’d like to know about. But one thing is for certain, if you had been waiting for CNN, you’re dealing with a wholly different set of scenarios.

Keep safe!!

I attended the Supply Chain Resilience for Competitive Advantage seminar by Professor Yossi Sheffi today. Some notes from that webinar:

1. Examples of disruptions that companies have faced and a firm’s reaction to them:
   • Disruption of the electronic supply Chain illustrated through the March 2000 Philips fire and the effect that it had on Nokia and Ericsson supply chains. More information about this story can be found here in one of my previous posts: Creating the Optimal Supply Chain – Review (Flexibility in the face of Disaster : Managing the risk of supply chain disruption).
   • Another case, UPF Thompson filed for bankruptcy and its effect on Land Rover because UPF was a sole supplier of chassis for Land Rover Discovery. Recounted here: Land Rover calls for legal change.
   • February 1997, The fire which disrupted the sole supply of proportional valves to Toyota (12 hours for all Toyota plants to come to a halt because of JIT model). All the other suppliers of Toyota raced against time to manufacture proportional valves for Toyota – two weeks to bring all Toyota plants back to round the clock operation. A good review of the disruption, recovery and participants can be found in this article: Exploring Knowledge Emergence: From chaos to organizational knowledge (Pg 9-10).
   • September 1999, Taiwan Earthquake disruption of semiconductor equipment manufacturers.
   • August 2001 dialysis filter deaths problem at Baxter
   • February 2001, Foot and Mouth disease in the UK. 6 million animals were killed but more importantly the UK govt. closed down tourism to UK countryside, the financial impact of which was much higher than the initial problem.
2. Why are some companies more resilient than others?
   • Culture
     • Continuous communication (informed employees, environment, status)
     • Distributed power – which is driving decision making to a lower level within the organization.
     • Passion for work and the mission
     • Deference to expertise
     • Conditioning for disruption
   • Culture Change
     • Safety
     • Quality
     • Many others (smoking, drinking-and-driving)
3. What kind of resiliency should one aim for in procurement?
   • If you have a single supplier – work towards a deeper supplier relationship, it has to be an investment.
   • If you want a shallow relationship – you need multiplier suppliers.
4. The development of and investment in Supply Chain resilience is very hard to justify because like insurance, it isn’t needed until is needed.

The part that Professor Sheffi didn’t get into was Competitive Advantage – perhaps because of the numerous disruptions in the webinar itself – Ahem!!. However, it is a barely hidden point, it can be inferred readily. But I don’t think that it is competitive advantage here but relative advantage and there is a crucial difference. Why is it relative advantage and not competitive advantage?

If you look at one of the examples above – Ericsson vs Nokia with respect to the Philips fire, better relationships with suppliers can be had easily if not within an organization context but at least in a process context (procurement process, if you’d like). There is no real barrier to copying such advantages and so it doesn’t rise to the level of a true competitive advantage. However, organizational culture is a different beast which can be a source of competitive advantage simply because the disruption example was in the context of procurement here. What if the disruption was in the context of assembly or transportation or even financing? Properly, organizational culture and its effect on supply chain resilience as well as competitive positioning is a good indicator of which firms will survive the inevitable hit just as national culture is a good indication of resilience in the face of adversity.

Disruption of the supply chain, as was presented in the webinar, can be cast into a quadrant based on High-Low Impact and High-Low probability, Similarly Relative Advantage can be cast into a quadrant against High-Low disruption of the supply chain. You may even go to the extent of scenario planning and training and that is better than not engaging in it but you have no way of knowing which part of the organization is going to be the leading edge as it encounters new adversity/disruption i.e. the first point of contact with the initial rumbling of a disruption which if not contained/dampened/prepared for will snowball into a wide-scale disruption. In this case, you need to fall back on the only real insurance policy there is – a team of talent properly tasked, engaged, authorized and networked.

One symptom of such organizations should be easy to identify and I must thank Professor Sheffi for highlighting it, in individuals – a character trait, in organizations – a cultural trait and in nations – a traditional trait. “Those who succeed are praised for their success but those who fail are not reprimanded for it. Failure becomes a point of reexamination and reflection.”

Now, take a step back – take a wide eyed view of events that transpire in your life, firm and nations. Resilience? Or are you being taken with the current?